Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browncoat ball

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Browncoat. Mergers from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 08:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Browncoat ball

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:Notability. References do not link to WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement from creator of the page. (Unsigned message copied from Talk:Browncoat_ball).

I carefully read the articles and this group is definitely in grey area. Perhaps the following information will help in decisions?

There is no company, service or product. Nothing is for sale. There are no membership fees. There is no seeking of money in any way.

Wikipedia is not being used for advertising (if that's a concern) because no one would know to search it unless they already knew about it, in which case further advertising isn't required.

There is no physical holdings at all (no meeting hall, no clubhouse, no anything). It exists completely as an intellectual exercise predominantly in cyberspace, hence the desire to substantiate a verifiable internet presence.

While I appreciate concerns that it's perhaps too small an organization to merit inclusion, given it's roving status and lack of product/business model, if the internet were to censor it for not being a mega-corp of some sort, then it would be impossible to grow. The Facebook page was started about 1.5 months ago and nearly has 1000 Likes. Compared to the billions on the planet, this is nothing, but for a month and a half with no product, advertising or business behind it, that number displays the potential reach. These "Likes" span both states and countries and are only growing, so it's more significant than "my brothers band" but less than McDonalds. I don't know how big is big enough. However Wikipedia is looked to as a source of "is this real" and lack of inclusion harms its credibility, especially, again, given it's lack of a physical existence.

The purpose of the page is to affirm that it is a real thing, and to dispel any rumors, misconceptions, explain the roots etc. (And perhaps hopefully re-encourage an age where people meet - at a Ball, local pub, town square, what have you - an actually discuss the news of the day and learn something new. It's focus is as an intellectual society - meeting, learning, talking, like society once did.)

Wikipedia already has entires on several intellectual groups (and fan-groups like comic-con), the difference is that they all have a physical location and mostly look to achieve funding/profit whereas the Ball exists solely in cyberspace and has no dues or financial holdings of any kind. This creates a greater need for verification, not a lesser one. It's can be seen as the latest shift in the information age - clubhouses, dues and physicality are no longer required. But credibility is all the more important. If it's not big enough, then what is the target number for recognition?

Copied and pasted by BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Condense to
Notability is. Surely if fans "need to know", there are other outlets for knowledge. Lastly, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
inclusion criteria. Comic Con has articles written about it in national newspapers, and that's why it has an article. I don't think there's really anything to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.